Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
Dog shit is digested "food". God shit is digested "mind". I see it all over the place.
-
Features
Consciousness
- Thread starter George S
- Start date
You better demand your money back because the education you received were fraud after fraud those guys put inside your brain.
First at all, the dude who wrote the essay or article is clearly a fanatic of evolution, you can tell because he enforces the doctrines of the theory instead of giving the analysis based on the observation without giving personal beliefs.
Second, the scenario he has presented is not the general scenario.
You and possibly him are assuming that the whole bacteria which were sensitive to the antibiotics died and the ones which weren't sensitive survived and populated back very fast and replaced the ones which were gone.
If that is true, then nobody should recover from bacteria attacks using antibiotics. If that is his point and yours, then no antibiotics should work at all!
Such idea is peanuts.
Get it?
Lets see what this dude preaches, have you bible at hand... this is to say, you Darwin book.
" provide the mutants with survival advantages over their susceptible counterparts." What a wonderful stupidity.
He first mixes the recent increasing of Tuberculosis thanks to the presence of AIDS.
Then, it is not tuberculosis bacteria alone but human body's decay or degeneration by causes of other infection. In this case a virus.
Are you with me?
Good.
Lets go to the AIDS virus.
There are people who have been catalogued as having a "natural resistance to the AIDS virus".
After a deep study, it was found out that it wasn't any "resistance". People who were exposed to the virus and acquired it but weren't affected, was because their immune cells were "DEFORMED". Lol.
Yup. The AIDS virus uses the "hair" of the human body immune cells like Tarzan swings through the jungle by hanging from a wine. People who were born with the defect of having their body immune system with "bold" cells, didn't provide the method of transportation for the AIDS viruses.
As you can see, there is no "evolution" and there is no "adaptation", no "speciation" nothing of what this dude of the link and you are trying to sell. And, be born with "bold" immune system cells is not "favorable" because only saves you from viruses like the AIDS virus, however it won't help you for resisting catching a cold.
And to be exposed to AIDS is not a "nature thing", so there is no reason for the human species to "speciate" against AIDS.
So, we have supposedly the dude mechanism:
"Chromosomal mutations."
Lets see what are those.
https://www.bioexplorer.net/chromosomal-mutations.html/
Errors, mistakes or problems happening in the process and with a chromosome.
Great!
You were born with Down Syndrome, then you have "evolved"! That error, mistake, problem in your chromosomes made you more "resistant" to better educated people.
See the situation here?
The Tuberculosis bacteria is not more resistant, it has suffered an UNFAVORABLE change, its chromosomes are now replicated with errors, mistakes and problems. Darwin was wrong. Period.
You are being witness here that this dude has imposed his scientific religious beliefs on Darwin's theory rather than analyzing, evaluating and having conclusions with impartial judgement. A true scientists won't promote a theory with the results of a tests or an observation. The most closer they go is saying, "it appears that such theory might be correct", or "this result might corroborate the hypothesis of..."
Only facts can be asserted without discussion, but theoretical stuff is always exposed to error, and only mediocre dudes or paid under the table scientists spread out propaganda in favor of a theory.
Lets go to the explanation of the mechanism of the process of antibiotics in bacteria (this is about M.Tuberculosis alone.)
Look, you can even see the diagram, how after the oxidation reaction will give as consequence the death of the cell or "increased mutation rates".
The drug is causing cellular proteolysis, which is known if not controlled will cause the degradation of proteins.
The survivors will carry chromosomes with degraded proteins, the consequence will be mutations for the next generation or replica.
Ask yourself the question.
How in the word a degraded bacteria will be "more resistant" to antibiotics?
The assumed explanation in your link, as far as I have reviewed it, is not telling the mechanism of why the mutated bacteria is not affected anymore by antibiotics. It only says how it gets mutated by the cause of the drug.
If you might be so kind to show the specifics.
The link only mention the wonderful "evolution of mutated bacteria" in front of antibiotics, but that's all. The diagram explain the process until bacteria or dies or mutates.
It is not explaining the new mutated bacteria.
Do you get the point?
Or die or mutate.
It mutated. Then, what happened?
Show me with this analogy.
The bacteria before antibiotics had 2 million hairs, a gigantic mouth, clutches, long legs, great vision, big teeth, etc.
After a treatment with antibiotics, what happened? Why mutated bacteria is not affected anymore?
Your link has explained why some bacteria survives and with some died, however, saying "mutations made them drug resistant" is not the total explanation.
I'm not asking the mechanism of proteolysis in M. Tuberculosis or cells in general, which until today is hard to be understood, but the mechanism of why bacteria is not affected by some drugs to which was exposed before, that one yes, it does have an explanation.
Surely you don't know why, and for this reason you still are defending a good for nothing theory.
George S
Veteran Member
TL;DR
Almost all of the time there are no resistant bacteria. I recall the early antibiotics worked for years. During that time antibiotics were prescribed when they didn't know whether a virus or bacterial illness. And then, somewhere, after billions upon billions were killed by that antibiotic there was a mutation that made an individual resistant. Exponential growth occurred. The patient was given a different antibiotic and all was well. After billions of billions more it happened again. And again and again. Finally one survived. And grew enough to spread to another host. We now have a population resistant to two antibiotics. After more and more years one bacterium mutated to be resistant to 3. On and on to MRSA and others.
George S
Veteran Member
There are numbers so large here it boggles the mind. An invading horde of bacteria is only a few million or so.
How many millions must clone before a resistant mutation occurs. Even if the odds were 1 in a billion for mutation, given the large numbers there is enough time -- given years.
Tetracycline was introduced in the 40s. It was prescribed in the 60s. It is still used today because not all bacteria have developed resistance, only some.
How many millions must clone before a resistant mutation occurs. Even if the odds were 1 in a billion for mutation, given the large numbers there is enough time -- given years.
Tetracycline was introduced in the 40s. It was prescribed in the 60s. It is still used today because not all bacteria have developed resistance, only some.
Wiki said:
Wiki said:
Subsymbolic
Screwtape
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 806
- Location
- Under the Gnomon
- Basic Beliefs
- Beliefs are an ancient theory of brain content which would be ripe for rejection except it's the idiom in which we came to know ourselves and thus elimination is problematic. We make it up from there
Well that's the insults out of the way. Now the slightly more challenging task of justifying them.
Are you trying to tell me that you can have observation that is free of theory? How amusing. There's always metaphysical assumptions. Perhaps, rather than just slagging it down you can do a comparison of both explaining why yours are superior. Because slagging stuff down on zero evidence is becoming a theme here.
Really?
I can assure you I am not. I am assuming, as I said, that the bacteria lives in an environment in which there are sources of food, optimum temperatures, all of the armory of the body's immune systems, competing bacteria and a host of other things going on. The antibiotic is just one variable.
But it's not true it's just yet another tedious straw man.
Straw, actually. Your ignorance of biology is genuinely shocking for someone who chooses to argue about it. Are you really soi unclear about what an enviuronment is that you think there's only one variable going on?
All too clearly.,
Lets see what this dude preaches, have you bible at hand... this is to say, you Darwin book.
Well, a theory that has been refined, very much supported by evidence and all that from its conception to the present day, I've got that.
Source said:
HM said:
Hang on, are you saying that not being susceptible to antibiotics doesn't confer a selective advantage, ie. doesn't make it more likely a bacteria will survive? Can you explain why you'd say that? Forget evolution, we are talking about something being poisoned. If the poison effects it, it's in trouble if it doesn't, it's not.
Yes?
source said:
Well, the Aids virus changed the environment by reducing the effectiveness of the immune system. Remember, this is just one variable out of many.
Actually I think I'm way, way ahead of you here.
Oh goody.
Yup, because they have been repeatedly exposed to HIV without contracting it.
HM said:
We've had this problem before. you can only call something deformed relative to a canonical designe, evolution doesn't have canonical designs, just designs. So the word you need to use here is 'different'. That's all you can say. In this case, there was a mutation that removed the chemokine receptor CCR5 which HIV had been using as the 'doorway' to cells allowing it to get inside them. Those people without a CCR5 receptoir site simply didn't have adoor that HIV could use to enter the cell. Obviously the lack of this door meant the receptor that usually used this 'door' couldn't either, making this mutation inherently unhelpful. However, in the presence of HIV it suddenly became a huge advantage as HIV couldn't get in.
Yeah, that metaphor will do. Like any virus HIV invades cells and uses them to make more viruses. In this case what makes HIV so deadly is it invades immune cells both allowing it to multiply and destroying the immune response which then changes the environment favourably for other pathogens.
As you can see, there is no "evolution" and there is no "adaptation", no "speciation" nothing of what this dude of the link and you are trying to sell.
Hang on! So we have a disease that is basically a death sentence. Those with a CCR5 receptor will almost certainly die from HIV within a few years and those without a CCR receptor will not. Who then will get to breed? the dead ones or the ones with the CCR5 removing mutation? When those with the CCR5 mutation breed are they likely to pass on the mutation? As a result, within a few generations, you will have increasing numbers of people without a CCR5 receptor who are resistant to HIV and decreasing numbers who do have a CCR5 receptor and keep dying of AIDS due to HIV. Simple.
Having an immune system that is not compromised by HIV allows the immune system to carry on doing its job, attacking things like the common cold. When HIV knocks out the immune system colds become lethal because the immune system has been undermined by the HIV virus. Surely you can understand that
HM said:
How is viral infection, whatever the vector, not natural? More to the point, even if it wasn't natural, if it reduced or increased fitness in an environment natural selection would respond to i.
Dude mechanism?
HM said:
First, you seem to have missed the next bit of your own source which talks about 'The Advantages of Chromosomal Mutations' It's even a section with its own title! This is just an example of genetic drift - the way that we end up with more variation, some helpful (for an environment) some unhelpful (for an environment). Then we get the selection bit where the unhel;pful tends to be eliminated leaving only the helpful, thus accumulating helpful changes.
No, I haven't evolved yet. What I have is a translocation of genetic material. This will lead to changes in the phenotype that will either confer a selective advantage or not. In fact there's rather a serious moral issue going on right now, that I'll mention in passing. In the uk it has just become possible to detect Down's syndrome safely and early. Having a foetus with Down's is acceptable grounds for free abortion in the NHS
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...-Syndrome-blood-test-is-approved-for-NHS.html
As it stands, the old test carried a substantial risk of miscarrying and my wife and I for one, refused the test on that basis. We wouldn't refuse the current one. Once you know that your foetus will have Down's syndrome, the chance of choosing to try again rather than have a child with Down's syndrome is fairly overwhelming. As such, there is now a much stronger slective pressure against Down's. However having had a childhood friend with Down's Syndrome and having worked with Down's Syndrome kids for time to time, I think that this is a terrible loss of diversity and indeed some of the most loving and kind people I have ever met. Our society will be the worse for it.
Indeed, you really don't grasp what evolution is, either deliberately or through sameful ignorance.
Sorry? The HIV virus doesn't attack the TB it attacks the immune system removing one of the things that attacked TB, it changes the environment to be easier for TB to survive and breed. Seriously, at least try to keep track of what you are saying. You just sound very confused now.
You keep saying that, but all the evidence you put up actually support's Darwin's theory.
What the actual fuck is a 'scientific religious belief'. Science is one sort of intellectual tradition with one sort of metaphysics methodology and so on. Religion is another. Stop confusing yourself.
Ahh - the no real scotsman fallacy, one of my favourites.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
Of course they would. The y just wouldn't say it was proven, and guess what, in the conclusion they say things like:
HM said:
And guess what, that's exactly what they demonstrably do say in the conclusion, or at least something most close to that:
scientists said:
TB said:
I agree, it's lucky they demonstrably don't and you demonstrably do. You are the one making these sorts of claims. Ironic isn't it. As for facts, clearly you are not a philosopher either.
Ooh, let's
Science said:
Indeed, the antibiotic attacks, and I quote, 'nucleic acids, proteins, and lipids. Normally this will kill the cells, but should they survive, the damage to the nucleic acids, the building blocks of DNA and RNA, will cause many more mutations, because the code is getting damaged. Most of these mutations will simply lead to cell death, but some will not just survive, but improve survivability, confer a selective advantage which will be fixed by the simple fact that bacteria with it will tend to survive and breed, passing on the advantageous mutation. The disadvantageous mutations will die with their host. In short it is DNA and RNA damage that gets passed on, not protein damage, that dies with the affected bacteria, even if it is helpful; there is no mechanism for passing it on.
Sure.
In as much as this makes sense, given the role of histones and nucleic acids, possibly, but then the generation after, assuming it survives will have undamaged histones and it will only be the information that is carried in the RNA and DNA that matters. These are not protiens.
You are confusing yourself with your determined use of the word 'degraded' There simply isn't any way you can use the word sensibly here. The only word you can use is 'different'. Most different bacteria will be less well suited to the environment, but a few will be better adapted, just like the people with the CCR5 difference. These will survive to breed again, thus preserving and accumulating the improved fit to this particular environment. Even if you could use that word, it's the proteins and so on that are damaged, not the bacteria, the degraded proteins may confer an advantage, as we saw with HIV - the removasl of the CCR5 while damage, stops the HIV from getting into the cell...
Yes, of the billions of bacteria and the many millions that are mutated, the overwhelming majority will simply die as the mutation renders them unfit. However, a diminishing minority will mutate in a way that is advantageous.
If you might be so kind to show the specifics.
Sure, they go into detail in the very next paragraph, perhaps you should have read on. (although your ability to cherry pick is remarkable...)
In a search for M. tuberculosis proteins that bind the active molecule pyrazinoic acid, the 30S ribosomal protein S1 (RpsA) was identified (Shi et al. 2011). Overexpression of rspA results in increased pyrazinamide resistance (Shi et al. 2011). Sequencing of a non-pncA pyrazinamide resistant strain revealed a 3-base pair in-frame deletion that leads to loss of Alanine 438 at the C terminus of RspA (Shi et al. 2011). These observations suggested that RspA is involved in M. tuberculosis pyrazinamide resistance.
Sure, but then the next paragraph goes into detail.
In that paragraph. The next however...
Yes, you didn't read the paragraph after the one you cherry picked.
That mutation either left it better fitted for the environment or it didn't. If it didn't it would tend to die, if it did it would tend to survive. if it died, the unhelpful (in that environment) mutation is lost, if it survived then that helpful (in that environment) mutation would be preserved and contribute to the general fitness (in that environment) of its offspring that carried that mutation. That's what Darwin meant by accumulation and why it tends to be positive mutations that accumulate.
Is that what you think bacteria look like?
No, indeed, however the specifics of why it made them drug resistant were covered in the very next paragraph.
Isn't it? it is clearly explained in that article: reactive oxygen and free radicals denature the protein, lipids and nucleic acid. That's a very clear and well understood process.
I know: evolution.
It's a theory that comfortably explains everything above and one that I think you dimly grasp because you couldn't cherry pick as effectively if you didn't. Why are you so scared of evolution that you will deny the evidence in front of you? If it's not religion (but I still think it is) then why are you so against this theory in particular?
You provided a very good insight.
When you look at the ancient horse with the current one, the degeneration is obvious when first having functional digits, to later ending monodactyl with absent lateral digits.
If the horse was to keep the former characteristics until today, then the capabilities of survival should be of a greater reach, because it could live in grasslands and forest.
So you have a restriction rather than a benefit with that mutation.
With this simple example, Darwin book is garbage.
Lets go to micro-organisms.
The same, exactly the same.
The example given above with people who won't be affected by the presence of AIDS virus because the immune system of these people has cells without hair or hair reduced to a minimum, the observation of the cells alone is telling you that the cells of these people have a diminished reception sensitivity. This is degeneration.
By chance, not because any "natural selection", it happens that the deformity in the cells of these individuals, is preventing the easy mobilization of the AIDS virus in their bodies.
Mixing the above with analogies. People with immune system cells in normal status are like roads with excellent pavement without potholes and similar.
People with immune system cells without hair are like roads with mud all the way, and stones and potholes.
The AIDS virus is a driver in his motorcycle, who will drive fast in the immune system with normal cells, but it will have hard problems traveling thru the immune system with cells without hair.
I have, personally the hard feeling that the reason of some people of having immune cells without hair might be caused by former treatments with antibiotics or similar treatments on their ancestors. It can be the water and other causes as well.
The reason for my thought is because it has been observed that the effects of antibiotics in lab mice were inherited by the offspring. Same with humans.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-bacterial-linked-antibiotics-inflammatory-bowel.html
This from right above is the background from what I will respond to your message.
The problem with bacteria and antibiotics is that the defenders of evolution are not considering that the antibiotics has also changed the human body. There are lots and lots of links showing side effects caused by the use of antibiotics.
The effects -as a drug- in the chromosomal level will also cause a change of behavior of other beneficial bacteria transforming it into malicious bacteria.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X04001611
Lets say, the good bacteria is people going to church, and the bad bacteria are the supporters of evolution. The observation implies that coexisting in the same environment, the bad bacteria passed to the good bacteria their behavior of becoming bad.
Uhhhhhhh!
This is not good.
___________________________________________________________
Of course, you can also find lots of links "praising" antibiotics as possible help for Alzheimer and other benefits from them, of course, there were tests on mice.
As impartial I can be, I feel obligated to mention that some specialists have those opinions on antibiotics and their tests appear to corroborate their findings.
I can continue now with my position.
______________________________________________________________________________
The problem with evolutionists, is that they can't see the whole scenario.
They concentrate in the bacterium alone and the antibiotics alone, as if there is always a "lab alike environment" surrounding the event of bacterial attack.
When you put in order the links, when you finally look at the whole, you will see the bacteria in distress because the attack with antibiotics, you will see defenses of the organism also affected by antibiotics, you see good bacteria affected as well because the antibiotics, a whole human body reacting in front of antibiotics.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...mdash-drugs-themselves-help-bacteria-survive/
The total result is a change in the malicious bacteria =in case is not killed- change in the immune system of the person, change in the good bacteria, and also change in the next generations of the person who received the antibiotics treatment.
Look at this.
The body of the person who has received a treatment with antibiotics has changed forever. The antibiotics was practically a chemical attack.
If we count the millions and millions of prescriptions made solely with antibiotic treatments, then we must be obligated to open a new topic in World History forums "Defending Saddam Hussein" (about his chemical attack on people... joking)
When you apply the same treatment (second treatment) of antibiotics on the same person, the effects will be different not only because the bad bacteria has mutated but also because the good bacteria has changed and also because the human body and defenses in general have changed as well.
The only one which is not different in composition in the second treatment is the antibiotics.
I stop here.
First, I want to know if you disagree with me up to this point in this message.
If no, then I will proceed and show you with examples of a case here and there, where the used word "resistant" will be proved to be just an expression.
Reality is that bacteria never became more "resistant" or better adapted and or similar.
If you disagree that not only bad bacteria but also good bacteria and the human body didn't change forever -no matter at what level- after the first treatment of antibiotics, please at least provide a link corroborating your opposite point of view.
We passed that part -with the link provided-, showing what chromosomes mutations are about.
When you degrade proteins to combat HIV, you are also degrading protein for survival of the individual as a living organism.
Then, the solution for one thing is a new problem for the individual. You remind me an uncle whom for breakfast used to have about 7 pills of different sizes and colors. He used to smoke a lot and have some issues with blood flowing to his brain. He explained me, one was for making blood thinner so can pass thru almost blocked veins, but the pill causes stomach irritation, so he take a second pill for the stomach, but it causes heavy drowsiness, so he take the another pill for drowsing but it causes.... a chain of side effects and temporary remedies... for what? He died of lung cancer.
When you degrade the normal level of proteins in a person, you are causing harm... but you will save him from AIDS and mutants.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAkRrp46SBE[/YOUTUBE]
Now you are finally getting the point. The mutations are not favorable, because it will cause degenerate out comings in the species.
Now well, the new degenerate status, in the case of the bacterium in question, by chance and not by theoretical doctrines, is sometimes advantageous.
This situation is not backing up evolution. As I pointed before in another message in this topic, survival of the species and their changes are just being at the right place at the right moment. Thousands of years ago horses in Europe and Asia survived, but in America died and got extincted. Ones where in the right place and the right moment, the other ones didn't.
Simple.
If you might be so kind to show the specifics.[/B]
The test, what radiometric system was used? The BACTEC 37 460TB with BACTEC 460TB PZA?
Was the ACTEC MGIT 960 (BT960) 41 platform for PZA susceptibility?
I must encourage you to review that either test is not infallible and comparing both the discordance is notorious, not slight but very notorious.
Your link, by the origin of the agency must have used 460TB which is discontinued, and even if they use BT960, results can't be taken as accurate as well. It is needed a third method of test other than 460TB to verify BT960. (460TB is currently out of production).
In the "mechanism" shown above, the method of measure pyrazinamide susceptibility can be taken as an testimony but not as evidence because was not in agreement with the another method of measurement.
You have here a crucial challenge for the given results.
Lets continue.
"Over-expression of rspa"
rspa a glycoprotein which in this case discussing here has the duty of binding to the 30S ribosomal protein S1.
What the mutation does is to "impair" the binding. This is to say, the binding is not strong anymore, it can get loose easily.
Like if you have your teeth binding strongly to your gums, the mutation will cause for you weak setting of the teeth in your mouth. They can fell out after eating an apple.
Is it "favorable" for bacteria having weak bonding in its structure?
What the hell is that "over-expression?"
Simply, the increased frequency of losing the characteristic of bonding.
"loss of Alanine"
Another degeneration like the horse losing functional digits. Another example for this case is, you lose your skin capabilities to protect you from the environment.
That is not "adaptation", that is not evolution", that is not "speciation", losing alenanine (amino acids) is degeneration.
Up to here, losing capabilities and structural damage and bonding is what antibiotics cause in our poor Tuberculosis bacterium.
Even so, for the next treatment using the same antibiotics, our hero, the Toobee bacterium survives it.
Wow!
You called it "resistant", the whole evolutionists called it "resistant".
However, for our Toobee bacterium, having a deformed body won't make it "resistant" to a new attack.
Think.
Think, because your link is not giving the answer.
But, the bacteria have lost characteristics, there is no "accumulation" but lost of characteristics.
Show me the "accumulations".
I have reviewed above each one of the points given in the assumed explanation of the mechanism, and the only thing you can read is the something similar to the following:
The huge truck hit on the small car caused the car's front lights smashed, the front ball joints went loose, the alignment disturbed and siding to the left, air condition condenser gone, radiator destroyed, engine pushed inside and under the car bumper falling out, and broken windshield on the passenger side due to passenger didn't use seat belt.
You are telling me that with these conditions, the car is now more "resistant" for the next hit by truck, who's driver is obfuscated to hit again in order to kill the driver of the car because he is his wife's love affair.
Where are the "accumulation of favorable steps"?
You are an evolutionist and now it happens that you yourself don't understand what he said.
Read again your phrase.
"Positive"? HIV positive is something "favorable"... sure... right...
____________________________________________________________________
Here is your test of fire. This is an analogy.
Respond to the analogy applying the discussion topic, replacing the Tuberculosis bacterium by a dude.
If you can't explain it, it is possible because you can't understand evolution and less what I am explaining you several times by now.
Apparently you never read the small print words at the bottom of documents, in this case the superfluous conclusion from the consequences of antibiotics in bacteria. Saying "more resistant" is not what is going on.
Read my example of people with bold immune cells, they are not "resistant" but simply "no affected" by the AIDS virus, solely because their defect. They catch a cold, they can suffer liver diseases, stomach problem because other bacteria and viruses won't use immune cells hair as their way to move easily inside the body. Is it a weird case. It is not any "evolutionary step" but a birth defect.
Because evolution is a scientific religion.
Don't forget to answer the analogy.
Answering properly the analogy from above is the best way to check how well you understand evolution. It is just changing the bacterium for a dude. From here, introduce a treatment with drugs to kill the dude. Show the effects. show that when the dude survives will be "more resistant" to the next attack.
Best wishes.
Subsymbolic
Screwtape
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 806
- Location
- Under the Gnomon
- Basic Beliefs
- Beliefs are an ancient theory of brain content which would be ripe for rejection except it's the idiom in which we came to know ourselves and thus elimination is problematic. We make it up from there
I don't think that link did what you think it did.
You'll need to be more precise: do you mean attacking HIV with antibiotics? or do you mean the simple fact that some people lack the CCR5 pathway? I'll say it again, you can't use words that express a value judgement without specifying a designer, a design the preferences of a community or, at the very least the environment the subject is in. In an environment with HIV lacking the CCR5 pathway is a massive improvement as it renders you immune to HIV and means you will survive to have children and tend to pass on your immunity. Those with CCR5 will tend to die.
Yeah and you remind me of a Flat Earther. He commited suicide after his wife left him. And the moral of the story? Like you, I think he knew he was wrong and just couldn't admit it. Very sad.
I'm happy with that, the loss of CCR5 would under normal circumstances be a bad thing, however in the face of HIV it suddenly becomes a good thing. That's the importance of diversity - lots of different shuffles of the genetic deck so that when adversity comes some will be better adapted than others - these survive.
That's the key thing, you are picking out a single example of diversity and calling it degradation - however everything is different and there are no grounds for calling it better or worse.
HM said:
Sub said:
Nope, read the bit in bold again: it's this minority that tend to survive and breed - the majority will tend to die rather rapidly.
So why call it degenerate when it is advantageous - more to the point this advantage will help it survive in the environment, fixing the change.
Yup, there's diversity, those that are more fit for the environment tend to survive and breed. Easy. During the Pleistocene, things got really cold - horses migrated across the Bering straits land bridge and headed to warmer climes. Any that stayed in North America found the conditions to extreme too quickly and died. As the conditions warmed, the horses that migrated couldn't migrate back as there was no land bridge.
I just want to point out that the ED overgeneralization error is a classic sign of either being four or using words you are not familiar with. 'Extincted', sums up things up nicely.
HM said:
Wow, you have gone from ignoring it to making up a bullshit justification based on the test fro TB they used? Can you explain why they MUST have used 460 TB? And perhaps comment on this paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16329561
and explain what the words:
Mean? Look, you are not a scientist and so when you try to spout bullshit like this you just look bloody stupid. More to the point, you still haven't responded to the original point, merely tried to undermine it. Unsuccessfully.
I can barely contain myself.
You do realise just how silly this conflation of a chemical term and a folk term looks. No, of course you don't. Here's one example: what would happen if the binding of oxygen in haemoglobin was strong? you'd asphyxiate as the oxygen would never get released. Whether a strong or weak binding is positive or negative is relative to what it's doing - it's not a degradation, it's just different.
That depends entirely on the environment and what the bonding is doing.
Nope.
HM said:
Again, it's just different. In both cases it depends on the environment. With the fused foot, horses can run faster for longer. That was clearly and advantage at some point. Probably when it met some fast predators.
It really isn't, it's just different. Perhaps you want to explore this in context rather than grabbing three words and obsessing about the word loss.
And again, you somehow know to completely ignore my careful explanation of what is going on. That's the smoking gun. the thing you can't bear to engage with. You do, dimly realise the problem with your account, because natural selection is so simple even someone with no education in the area and in terrible denial can see the truth of it, so you ignore it over and over again, while holding on to the simplistic idea that loss of anything means degeneration. You must really struggle with the degeneration of people losing weight, or the degeneration of having a cancer removed and so on.
YOu are giving away your awareness of the problem by ignoring the same ideas over and over again - and indeed ignoring me pointing this out over and over again.
That's right.
Yes it is, very simply. Just like the people without the CCR5, the lack of something stops the infection or the poisoning from doing its damage. As a result, the person or bacteria survives and survives to breed, passing on this variation to the next generation.
Sub said:
HM said:
The lack of, for example, CCR5, is a characteristic. It's one among many millions. All of the time, reproduction, mutation, transcription errors and so on increase the variation, the number of different characteristics - that's a load of processes increasing the number of characteristics all the time. Meanwhile natural selection eliminates the least successful and accumulates the most successful as those with these characteristics survive to breed.
I just did. You'll ignore it, again, becuae you dimly see where youa re wrong but can't bring yourself to admit it.
Really? you can't have been paying much attention then.
Bu that's nothing like what I described. What I described is a massive community of people driving cars. Each one customises their car so every car is lightly different. Some, for example, fit wet weather tyres, some fit jacked up suspension and some strip out the extra weight to improve acceleration.
Then depending on the environment each of these variations confers different advantages. If the area has flooding then the jacked up suspension will allow some cars to drive through puddles while the others get flooded and are scrapped. If racing becomes popular, then the stripped down cars will do better and the jacked up cars will be scrapped. All the time people are trying new customisations and the conditions are always changing. As a result, there will be a tendency for the succesful variations to carry on, buit these too will be modified so there is always more variation to be tested.
That's what I was saying.
HM said:
No, I'm telling you that once again this is a silly straw man that doesn't remotely represent what I said. Again.
So you keep saying.
And again, you are deliberately equivocating on the word positive. This is simplyu dishonest and inexcusable. The word positive in HIV positive just means that you have HIV, Positive in the sense of mutation just means that the mutation helps you survive in a particular environment.
____________________________________________________________________
Why should I bother, you literally ignored my response to the last challenge. I wonder why that was. Well I don't I think it's because you know you are wrong but think if you keep pushing you'll somehow justify yourself. You will not.
Hang on. You are talking about a single guy who dies? I'm sorry to break this to you, but after the first attack this single guy will be dead. The end. Your example is fatally flawed as it has only a single person
In the bacteria example, there will be billions of bacteria and only some will die. The survivors will survive to breed the rest will die.
So for a realistic example let's take a million people and expose them to HIV. one percent of these people don't have a CCR5. They tend to survive. The rest do and tend to die. As a result, in the next generation the majority of people will inherit a lack of a CCR5 pathway and will not become infected. That's so simple i know you must understand it. Which is why I suspect you'll ignore it.
Again.
Sub said:
Really. Can you give me the precise page number or cut and paste this 'fine print' because I think you just made it up. YOu are so desperate you are resorting to simply saying things that are not true. You can't be doing that by accident.
If you want to call something a defect when it stops you from getting HIV then you are going to have to explain the negative effects. What is the precise downside of not having a CCR5 pathway? The upside is clear you don't get HIV. The downsides you describe are simply fantasy. YOu made them up.
HM said:
I explained why that made no sense las time. However, you know you are wrong. you wouldn't be able to cherrypick so effectively if you didn't grasp what undermines your account and your increasing reliance on fallacies and fantasies demonstrates your desperation.
I did, he died. the end.
You are quite right. I can only assume that you mean me to work out who the dude is. Let me see, who is a the dude that some people think can die and then come back to life... Who could it be? dies and then comes back to life so you can perform the test a second time. It's Jesus isn't it. So Jesus, isn't killed because of whatever bollocks it is Christians believe about Jesus returning from the dead, presumably as a zombie. So this confers a selective advantage over other humans because he's indestructible. So when he fucks Mary Magdalene and produces a line of little Jesi, psion, I believe they are clled, is this a characteristic that can be passed on? I don't know, finally there's an area you can talk about with authority.
is eternal life transmissible genetically?
Now I've finished taking the piss out of your daft demonstration, I just have to point out that a single example doesn't introduce variation. A billion people? I've answered already.
Thanks.
Last edited:
DolphinDynasty
Senior Member
HM -
I think it is odd that a discussion begun on how consciousness forms and what it is has developed into a long running rant filled with misinformation and misunderstanding to somehow "disprove" evolution while only relying on this same misinformation and fundamental misunderstanding iof what the fact of evolution can explain, hence there being a bunch of workable theories revolving around evolution.
Small changes over time that either increase or decrease the likelihood of fertility leading to a next generation, and thus continued survival is so not as difficult or as unbelievable as some apparently are thinking.
I find it rather disturbing for the amount of individuals who seem to spend a great chunk of time and effort on illogically and/or in some defiance of reality also continuously working around facts instead of with them just to try and deny their existence in the first place, when all is said and done. Because if any who are arguing against the occurrence of evolution actually had evidence to refute it, then they wouldn't be posting it on an internet forum like this. They'd be submitting their data, findings, and the conclusions drawn from them to everyone to be analyzed in a well-thought-out, properly measured and explained new theory.
Alas, it all reads like bunk. But I suppose I can't expect an individual who warps reality to such an extent to then focus on it.
I'd suggest further study, but it seems you're only going to go at it already illogically biased and with a seeming lack of intent to understand it.
With that said, could we go back to discussing consciousness, how it forms and how to analyze it? Seeing as the whole thread started out relating to that, and all.
Just sayin'.
You are correct.
What it happened is that there is no relationship between consciousness with a fake theory in order to understand the first.
Our capability of awareness is even worst than before. Distraction, one of the increasing behavior in our new generations is a complete contradiction of a process which will lead to "favorable" steps as species.
________________________________________________________________________
There is no doubt that the words "no affected anymore" is not synonymous of "resistant".
"Resistant" is a word that implies the individual will do an effort to hold hard an attack, to hold hard in order to avoid temptation, etc.
In the case of religious people, "resistant" will be to change their thoughts in order of not committing a sin. Resistant by no means is attacking back, it's just a defending action, like a shield.
Same way wolfs and other animals can't control the change in the color of their skin to white color in Winter season, same as well no species have control to make any change in their physical bodies to resist an attack. Just to hide somewhere or cover themselves with no physical power to change their bodies by themselves.
I practically "translated" the whole technical terms in the discussion about bacteria and antibiotics, because I wanted the readers to understand what those terms mean, what the process mean in clear layman language.
When this was done, the result was obvious, the whole technical terms were references of mutations, harmful effects in bacteria. The process bacteria suffered is without question a degenerate process. No one of the effects said bacteria "acquired" or "accumulated" favorable characteristics. On the contrary, deformities and lost of characteristics was the final result.
People who blindingly follow a theory won't be aware of the ridiculous position they are defending with such a fanaticism.
We must be aware that antibiotics cause harm to the human body and to bacteria: the good bacteria and the bad bacteria.
There is no place for being "more resistant" which is an expression used by evolutionists to keep their fantasy alive.
How can people be conscious about reality when fanatics are spreading out fake theories replacing our knowledge in science?
Science is the ruler, theories are just attempts to explain a process.
Same as well after a chemical attack, survivors have children with lots of defects, same as well bacteria which survive will procreate new bacteria with defects, not so new bacteria which is "more resistant".
Just review what are the harmful effects of chemicals in troops which were in contact with agent orange.
https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/conditions/index.asp
Just go to some websites showing that until today children are born with horrible birth defects in Vietnam.
Any one of them shows that victims who are descendants of survivors of the agent orange became more "resistant" to something?
The description is never "resistant" but birth defect, abnormalities, diseases, and more.
Clearly, evolutionists with their obstinate tendency to believe in a different religion -a known scientific religion as evolution-, solely with the objective of denying the biblical narration, they have lost consciousness about reality.
This was my point from the very beginning -you'll see it if you review the whole discussion about evolution in this topic- and still is my point now and always will bemy point, because it has strong and accurate foundation which is corroborate from all point of analysis that the only process in life is degeneration.
I based my position with facts, not so with theories.
Our consciousness is 100% related to what we perceive, to what we experience, to what we learn.
If you grow up receiving erroneous information, your awareness is already challenged and subjected to failure rather than following reality.
I think, people reject truth because fantasy offers hope, happiness, it is great losing control in the mind and leave imagination to rule the brains. Theories of science are competing with religion, when they want to offer a similar hope of "a better future" for humankind.
Reality is that the universe started to die the same moment started into existence. And we will continue the same fate, and no imaginary moving to other planets or bodies with favorable changes will happen, degeneration will take it all.
And you better be conscious that such is our destiny, our human destiny.
Subsymbolic
Screwtape
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 806
- Location
- Under the Gnomon
- Basic Beliefs
- Beliefs are an ancient theory of brain content which would be ripe for rejection except it's the idiom in which we came to know ourselves and thus elimination is problematic. We make it up from there
HM said:
Actually there is doubt. For a start, I'm doubting it. So let's have a look at your supporting argument.
Really? I've heard of stain resistant, fire resistant and drug resistant, I've never heard the term 'temptation resistant' is it a phrase getting much use at your church?
Yeah, but you are comparing bacteria evolving with Christians trying to score points for the afterlife. Even if the two words were remotely similar, this would be the fallacy of equivocation:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation
The fact is that 'Resistant has a clear meaning used by biologists. If God Botherers also use it, they don't use it in the same way.
No, you are missing the point again: evolution doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations and yes, kill all the wolves who change colour and pretty soon all will be left will be the ones who don't.
You asserted, without supporting argument or evidence that any changes were degeneration. You couldn't support it and you couldn't argue it, which is why you are now ignoring the last round of argument and starting again.
You know what irony is? This is situational irony. Other varieties are available.
We must be aware that antibiotics cause harm to the human body and to bacteria: the good bacteria and the bad bacteria.
You say that, but the clear explanation of precisely how it happens hasn't been rebutted and indeed your special analogy did nothing more than prove your ignorance - not least because you imagined evolution occurring in a single person who died and was reborn ready to try again.
Don't pretend to know anything about science. Rather than just bad mouthing people, try to actually argue against their evidence. But you never do that, you just ignore it. Meanwhile whenever you post your sick addiction to Christianity leaks out. You can deny it all you like but I'm sure Jesus is watching you deny him and I suspect he's not pleased. I'm just amused at you lying to me about that as well.
Except scientist just don't think like that. Explain falsificationism to me, please.
Indeed, and most of those children will die without breeding, just like the bacteria. very very rarely, one of those children will somehow be unaffected and they will tend to breed passing on their unaffectedness while the affected ones die. It's the same for bacteria - most of them die the unaffected ones don't and they get to breed passing on their unaffectedness. Simple.
You seem to think evolution happens to individuals. it doesn't, it happens to populations over time.
Sure, and out of all of these terrible problems there will be a few children who were exposed but uninfected - they will be the ones who tend to go on to breed, passing on their capacity for not being affected to their children. Those who are affected are simply less likely to breed so their susceptibilities die with them. It's that simple.
But it's the ones who are not affected who are resistant - they get to breed passing on their not being affected - don't you get it?
Religion is about faith and holding fast to faith despite evidence that God is laughably absent from the universe (for example). Science is about questioning everything and following a method that allows you to test and verify. That's not religion, that's precisely the opposite.
Yeah, every time we breed, meiosis shuffles the deck giving more options not less. You literally couldn't be more wrong.
You based your position on rank ignorance of the process of evolution such that you think it happens to individuals not populations, on equivocation and on homely folk tales. The last christian I know of who told folk tales turned out to be a paedophile who was moved to a different parish and offended again.
Actually why don't you just say entropy? Sure the universe will probably end with a whimper, but not because of your daft idea of degeneration.
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
So now you're claiming he universe is going to acquire the ability to whimper through some degenerate vacuum mutation?
Is your claim that the current vacuum is a false vacuum, and not the lowest possible energy state?
One form of human resistance to fire, for example, is protective gear. Another form is not lighting a match while standing in a pool of gasoline in an enclosed space. Both are due to some beneficial mutations that allowed behavior pattern mutations to occur in the imagination of the species before being applied to RL.
Is your claim that the current vacuum is a false vacuum, and not the lowest possible energy state?
One form of human resistance to fire, for example, is protective gear. Another form is not lighting a match while standing in a pool of gasoline in an enclosed space. Both are due to some beneficial mutations that allowed behavior pattern mutations to occur in the imagination of the species before being applied to RL.
Last edited:
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
IOW The 
Zeroth law of thermodynamics
Zeroth law of thermodynamics
Subsymbolic
Screwtape
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 806
- Location
- Under the Gnomon
- Basic Beliefs
- Beliefs are an ancient theory of brain content which would be ripe for rejection except it's the idiom in which we came to know ourselves and thus elimination is problematic. We make it up from there
Our vacuum cleaner broke the other day, it’s yet another degeneration. I was hoping it would evolve to be resistant to breaking, but nothing has happened yet. I probably didn’t pray hard enough...
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
IOW The
Which zero is it, since the structure of a zero is either a-a, a-2a+a, a-3a+3a-a...?
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
That sucks. Perhaps if we all pray together, then someone will be able to use the vacuum on our bank accounts? They might get a lint ball from mine.
Subsymbolic
Screwtape
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 806
- Location
- Under the Gnomon
- Basic Beliefs
- Beliefs are an ancient theory of brain content which would be ripe for rejection except it's the idiom in which we came to know ourselves and thus elimination is problematic. We make it up from there
Don’t use a vacuum cleaner on a bank account, they’ll only offer you a degener-rate.
Sorry.
If vacuum is formed by particles, then surely will decay.
Ether, the medium forming space must be decaying same as particles do.
Philosophers tried hard to make us believe that the universe is evolving, going from worst to better.
Reality is that elements of the universe are in continuous decay and stars, planets and we humans are formed with those decaying elements.
Why to fake everything will be better?
I think that we can take the position that we can be happy in a decaying world. Yes, we can enjoy our limited existence trying to be happy, but this is not a sign that everything will change for better because we are happy.
Got it?
Evolution is a dumb theory which is trying hard to compete with religion promising that species not only adapt to their miserable new status but that such changes are actually a sign of a better condition. Lol.
What a crap!
And many people believe that crap.
Well, if that is what make them happy, yes, they can believe whatever they want, that is the way they have "hope", with such a belief.
Reality, on the other hand, shows to us with the crude news that next big change in humanity will degrade our physical bodies into a worst status. Right now, people are born with more and more birth defects, this evidence shows that evolution is a fake story.
In the past, men and women were healthy and their death by bacterial and viral infections was because viruses and bacteria were stronger as well. The guys who signed the Constitution were of an average of 70 to 90 years of age, same as today, but we reach 80 and 90 years of age with lots of medicines and surgeries to reach such a longevity.
For once, think without the influence of the fake evolution theory and give a look at the world as it is.
Your awareness will return back to you, you will smile knowing how silly was from your part believing in those good for nothing theories: Consciousness at work.
Subsymbolic
Screwtape
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 806
- Location
- Under the Gnomon
- Basic Beliefs
- Beliefs are an ancient theory of brain content which would be ripe for rejection except it's the idiom in which we came to know ourselves and thus elimination is problematic. We make it up from there
Bloody hell!
Either you are well ahead of the pack or still channeling the fifteenth century. Let me guess...
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,101
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
No, it doesn't.